Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 28, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters From time to time in the ordinary course of its business, the Company is involved in various claims, litigation, and other legal actions that are normal to the nature of its business, including with respect to intellectual property, contract, product liability, employment, and environmental matters. The Company records any amounts recovered in these matters when collection is certain. In accordance with accounting standards regarding loss contingencies, the Company accrues an undiscounted liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, and the Company discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for its financial statements not to be misleading. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. Because litigation outcomes are inherently unpredictable, the Company’s evaluation of legal proceedings often involves a series of complex assessments by management about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. If the assessments indicate that loss contingencies that could be material to any one of its financial statements are not probable, but are reasonably possible, or are probable, but cannot be estimated, then the Company discloses the nature of the loss contingencies, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss or a statement that such loss is not reasonably estimable. While the consequences of certain unresolved proceedings are not presently determinable, and an estimate of the probable and reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued for such proceedings cannot be reasonably made, an adverse outcome from such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on its earnings in any given reporting period. However, in the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, and taking into account insurance coverage, any ultimate liability related to current outstanding claims and lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements, as a whole. Some of the Company’s more significant pending legal matters are discussed below: Environmental Matters. In 2001, the Company was notified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“State”) that it may have liability associated with the clean-up of the one-third acre Davis Chemical Company site in Los Angeles, California. The Company has been included in the clean-up program because it was one of the companies that used the Davis Chemical Company site for waste recycling and/or disposal between 1949 and 1990. The Company joined with other potentially responsible parties and entered into a Consent Order with the State that required the group to perform a soils investigation at the site and submit a remediation plan. The State has approved the remediation plan, which completes the group’s obligations under the Consent Order. Although the Consent Order does not require the group to remediate the site and the State has indicated it intends to look to other parties for remediation, the State has not yet issued “no further action” letters to the group members. To date, the Company’s share of the group’s expenses has not been material and has been expensed as incurred. The Company has used an environmental firm, specializing in hydrogeology, to perform monitoring of the groundwater at the Company’s former facility in Newbury Park, California that was leased for approximately forty years. The Company vacated the building in May 2002. Certain contaminants have been found in the local groundwater and site soils. Groundwater monitoring results to date over a number of years indicate that groundwater contaminants are, in full or in material part, from adjacent facilities. Responsibility for soil contamination remains under investigation. The location of key soil contamination is concentrated in an area of an underground storage tank that the Company believes to have been installed and used in the early 1960s by a former tenant at the site who preceded the Company’s tenancy. There are no claims pending with respect to environmental matters at the Newbury Park site. The applicable regulatory agency having authority over the site issued joint instructions in November 2008, ordering the Company and the current owner of the site to perform additional assessments and surveys, and to create ongoing groundwater monitoring plans before any final regulatory action for “no further action” may be approved. In September 2009, the regulatory agency issued supplemental instructions to the Company and the current site owner regarding previously ordered site assessments, surveys and groundwater monitoring. Most recently, in November 2012, the regulatory agency added two more potentially responsible parties to the matter, based on historical evidence of past occupancy or operations at the site dating to the 1960s. In addition, the regulatory agency has issued draft cleanup and abatement orders to all the parties. Responses to the draft orders are due from the parties in January 2013. The parties are expected to work cooperatively in responding to and determining the appropriate scope and extent of additional site investigative and categorization work, as well as in relation to any ultimate proposed clean up and abatement work. The Company has accrued liabilities where it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the cost or amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Based upon, and in anticipation of the likely outcome associated with the November 2012 draft cleanup and abatement order, the Company engaged an environmental firm to assist in an assessment of this site consistent with the direction of the draft order. Based on the Company’s preliminary assessment, it has determined a likely range of probable loss between $2.5 million and $5.7 million. Given the early nature of the draft clean up and abatement order and uncertainties associated with environmental assessment and the remediation activities, the Company is unable to determine a best estimate within the range of loss. Therefore, the Company recorded the minimum amount of $2.5 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2013 under “Accrued liabilities” on the Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets, and included in the Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Statement of Income under “Selling, general and administrative.” These estimates could change as a result of changes in planned remedial actions, further actions from the regulatory agency, remediation technology, and other factors. V SEMICONDUCTOR LITIGATION Gennum Corporation v. V Semiconductor Inc., et al. In a lawsuit filed by Gennum Corporation against V Semiconductor and the directors of V Semiconductor in the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice on February 3, 2012, the Company alleged that the defendants (i) misappropriated confidential information, (ii) had created and sold products based on the misappropriated confidential information (the “infringing products”), and (iii) had infringed copyright under applicable Canadian law to specified integrated circuit design scripts and related software code and design files (the “technology”). The Company also alleged that the individual named directors of V Semiconductor were in breach of contract, had unlawfully interfered with the economic interests of the Company, and had breached common law duties owed by them to the Company. The Company sought confirmation that its copyright had been infringed, injunctive relief against further infringement and damages in connection with the alleged infringement and alleged breaches referenced above. The allegations against the individual defendants arose from and relate to the named defendants’ prior involvement with Gennum as the principals in the sale to Gennum of the business from which the applicable technology at issue arose. Such defendants were also employees subsequent to their sale of the applicable company to Gennum prior to their resignation. V Semiconductor Inc. v. Semtech Corporation et al. Complaint was filed on April 27, 2012 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, against the Company, certain current and former employees and one non-employee director (the “U.S. litigation”). The Complaint alleged that the Company and the named individual defendants had, through acts leading up to and connected with the initiation and prosecution of the Gennum Corporation v. V Semiconductor Inc. et. al. litigation in Ontario, Canada discussed above (the “Canadian litigation”) acted in violation of U.S. and Michigan state law regarding restraint of trade by filing a “sham” lawsuit. The Complaint further alleged that the Company and the named individual defendants had conducted a malicious prosecution via the Canadian litigation, had tortiously interfered with prospective economic advantage and business expectations of V Semiconductor, had engaged in unfair competition, and, as for the non-employee director individually, breached non-disclosure and confidentiality obligations owed by the non-employee director to V Semiconductor. The Complaint alleged that the defendants filed the Canadian litigation frivolously, without merit, without factual substance, and for the primary purposes of causing a pending acquisition of V Semiconductor to fail, causing current and prospective customers of V Semiconductor to cease or avoid doing business with V Semiconductor, and preventing competing and allegedly superior technology and products from entering the marketplace. The Complaint sought permanent injunctive relief against the alleged anti-competitive and tortious conduct of the defendants, and sought economic and punitive damages from the defendants. Settlement Status The parties to the Canadian litigation and U.S. litigation entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, under which all claims in all suits have now been dismissed. The settlement was subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, and became effective on or about September 7, 2012 following completion of the applicable conditions and contingencies. Pursuant to the settlement having become effective, the parties to the Canadian litigation and U.S. litigation have secured the dismissal and termination with prejudice of the applicable legal proceedings. The Company has not accrued any amounts in connection with the settlement. Indemnification The Company has entered into agreements with its current executive officers and directors indemnifying them against certain liabilities incurred in connection with the performance of their duties. The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws contain comparable indemnification obligations with respect to the Company’s current directors and employees. Product Warranties The Company’s general warranty policy provides for repair or replacement of defective parts. In some cases, a refund of the purchase price is offered. In certain instances the Company has agreed to other warranty terms, including some indemnification provisions. The Company has recorded $210,000 for warranty reserves in “Accrued liabilities” section of the Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of October 28, 2012.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

From time to time in the ordinary course of its business, the Company is involved in various claims, litigation, and other legal actions that are normal to the nature of its business, including with respect to intellectual property, contract, product liability, employment, and environmental matters.

The Company records any amounts recovered in these matters when collection is certain. In accordance with accounting standards regarding loss contingencies, the Company accrues an undiscounted liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, and the Company discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for its financial statements not to be misleading. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote.

Because litigation outcomes are inherently unpredictable, the Company’s evaluation of legal proceedings often involves a series of complex assessments by management about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. If the assessments indicate that loss contingencies that could be material to any one of its financial statements are not probable, but are reasonably possible, or are probable, but cannot be estimated, then the Company discloses the nature of the loss contingencies, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss or a statement that such loss is not reasonably estimable.

While the consequences of certain unresolved proceedings are not presently determinable, and an estimate of the probable and reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued for such proceedings cannot be reasonably made, an adverse outcome from such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on its earnings in any given reporting period.

However, in the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, and taking into account insurance coverage, any ultimate liability related to current outstanding claims and lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements, as a whole.

Some of the Company’s more significant pending legal matters are discussed below:

Environmental Matters. In 2001, the Company was notified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“State”) that it may have liability associated with the clean-up of the one-third acre Davis Chemical Company site in Los Angeles, California. The Company has been included in the clean-up program because it was one of the companies that used the Davis Chemical Company site for waste recycling and/or disposal between 1949 and 1990. The Company joined with other potentially responsible parties and entered into a Consent Order with the State that required the group to perform a soils investigation at the site and submit a remediation plan. The State has approved the remediation plan, which completes the group’s obligations under the Consent Order. Although the Consent Order does not require the group to remediate the site and the State has indicated it intends to look to other parties for remediation, the State has not yet issued “no further action” letters to the group members. To date, the Company’s share of the group’s expenses has not been material and has been expensed as incurred.

The Company has used an environmental firm, specializing in hydrogeology, to perform monitoring of the groundwater at the Company’s former facility in Newbury Park, California that was leased for approximately forty years. The Company vacated the building in May 2002. Certain contaminants have been found in the local groundwater and site soils. Groundwater monitoring results to date over a number of years indicate that groundwater contaminants are, in full or in material part, from adjacent facilities. Responsibility for soil contamination remains under investigation. The location of key soil contamination is

concentrated in an area of an underground storage tank that the Company believes to have been installed and used in the early 1960s by a former tenant at the site who preceded the Company’s tenancy. There are no claims pending with respect to environmental matters at the Newbury Park site. The applicable regulatory agency having authority over the site issued joint instructions in November 2008, ordering the Company and the current owner of the site to perform additional

assessments and surveys, and to create ongoing groundwater monitoring plans before any final regulatory action for “no further action” may be approved. In September 2009, the regulatory agency issued supplemental instructions to the Company and the current site owner regarding previously ordered site assessments, surveys and groundwater monitoring. Most recently, in November 2012, the regulatory agency added two more potentially responsible parties to the matter, based on historical evidence of past occupancy or operations at the site dating to the 1960s. In addition, the regulatory agency has issued draft cleanup and abatement orders to all the parties. Responses to the draft orders are due from the parties in January 2013. The parties are expected to work cooperatively in responding to and determining the appropriate scope and extent of additional site investigative and categorization work, as well as in relation to any ultimate proposed clean up and abatement work.

The Company has accrued liabilities where it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the cost or amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Based upon, and in anticipation of the likely outcome associated with the November 2012 draft cleanup and abatement order, the Company engaged an environmental firm to assist in an assessment of this site consistent with the direction of the draft order. Based on the Company’s preliminary assessment, it has determined a likely range of probable loss between $2.5 million and $5.7 million. Given the early nature of the draft clean up and abatement order and uncertainties associated with environmental assessment and the remediation activities, the Company is unable to determine a best estimate within the range of loss. Therefore, the Company recorded the minimum amount of $2.5 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2013 under “Accrued liabilities” on the Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets, and included in the Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Statement of Income under “Selling, general and administrative.” These estimates could change as a result of changes in planned remedial actions, further actions from the regulatory agency, remediation technology, and other factors.

V SEMICONDUCTOR LITIGATION

Gennum Corporation v. V Semiconductor Inc., et al. In a lawsuit filed by Gennum Corporation against V Semiconductor and the directors of V Semiconductor in the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice on February 3, 2012, the Company alleged that the defendants (i) misappropriated confidential information, (ii) had created and sold products based on the misappropriated confidential information (the “infringing products”), and (iii) had infringed copyright under applicable Canadian law to specified integrated circuit design scripts and related software code and design files (the “technology”). The Company also alleged that the individual named directors of V Semiconductor were in breach of contract, had unlawfully interfered with the economic interests of the Company, and had breached common law duties owed by them to the Company. The Company sought confirmation that its copyright had been infringed, injunctive relief against further infringement and damages in connection with the alleged infringement and alleged breaches referenced above.

The allegations against the individual defendants arose from and relate to the named defendants’ prior involvement with Gennum as the principals in the sale to Gennum of the business from which the applicable technology at issue arose. Such defendants were also employees subsequent to their sale of the applicable company to Gennum prior to their resignation.

V Semiconductor Inc. v. Semtech Corporation et al. Complaint was filed on April 27, 2012 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, against the Company, certain current and former employees and one non-employee director (the “U.S. litigation”).

The Complaint alleged that the Company and the named individual defendants had, through acts leading up to and connected with the initiation and prosecution of the Gennum Corporation v. V Semiconductor Inc. et. al. litigation in Ontario, Canada discussed above (the “Canadian litigation”) acted in violation of U.S. and Michigan state law regarding restraint of trade by filing a “sham” lawsuit. The Complaint further alleged that the Company and the named individual defendants had conducted a malicious prosecution via the Canadian litigation, had tortiously interfered with prospective economic advantage and business expectations of V Semiconductor, had engaged in unfair competition, and, as for the non-employee director individually, breached non-disclosure and confidentiality obligations owed by the non-employee director to V Semiconductor.

The Complaint alleged that the defendants filed the Canadian litigation frivolously, without merit, without factual substance, and for the primary purposes of causing a pending acquisition of V Semiconductor to fail, causing current and prospective customers of V Semiconductor to cease or avoid doing business with V Semiconductor, and preventing competing and allegedly superior technology and products from entering the marketplace.

The Complaint sought permanent injunctive relief against the alleged anti-competitive and tortious conduct of the defendants, and sought economic and punitive damages from the defendants.

Settlement Status

The parties to the Canadian litigation and U.S. litigation entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, under which all claims in all suits have now been dismissed. The settlement was subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, and became effective on or about September 7, 2012 following completion of the applicable conditions and contingencies. Pursuant to the settlement having become effective, the parties to the Canadian litigation and U.S. litigation have secured the dismissal and termination with prejudice of the applicable legal proceedings. The Company has not accrued any amounts in connection with the settlement.

Indemnification

The Company has entered into agreements with its current executive officers and directors indemnifying them against certain liabilities incurred in connection with the performance of their duties. The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws contain comparable indemnification obligations with respect to the Company’s current directors and employees.

Product Warranties

The Company’s general warranty policy provides for repair or replacement of defective parts. In some cases, a refund of the purchase price is offered. In certain instances the Company has agreed to other warranty terms, including some indemnification provisions.

The Company has recorded $210,000 for warranty reserves in “Accrued liabilities” section of the Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of October 28, 2012.